LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 19, 1998

• 1548

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your patience. We have fulfilled the commitments and the regulations, and we have quorum. It will be our pleasure to welcome

[Translation]

from the Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Ontario (Ontario Association of French-Speaking Jurists), Ms. Boutet and Mr. Colvin. Is Mr. Gérard Lévesque with you? There he is. That's fine.

I think we will have an interesting discussion with you, because we are going to be looking at offences or contraventions that arise out of federal regulations and that were transferred to the provincial government, and from there, to the municipal government. We want to see why it is that the whole procedure,

[English]

the whole ball of wax, didn't come with a transfer of the responsibility and administration.

[Translation]

What is the situation. Who is going to begin?

[English]

Are you going to start, Mr. Colvin?

[Translation]

Mr. Tory Colvin (President, Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Ontario): Yes, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Be at ease in either language. As you see, I speak franglais.

Mr. Tory Colvin: Thank you, ma'am.

[Translation]

First of all, I would like to thank the Chair, and the senators and members of Parliament for agreeing to hear from us today. We appreciate that.

• 1550

Let me introduce our team: first, our Vice-President, Ms. Nathalie Boutet, and our Executive Director, Mr. Gérard Lévesque. I will ask Ms. Boutet to begin our presentation and I will take over a little later.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you.

Ms. Nathalie Boutet (Vice-President, Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Ontario): I will give you a brief explanation about the role of our association. We are a partnership between francophones and bilingual anglophones. We are very proud to have Mr. Colvin as our president. He is our first bilingual anglophone president. We represent the interests of lawyers, judges, professors and students in areas related to administration of justice. We want to ensure that French can be used in the justice system without penalty, delay, obstacles or hesitation.

Allow me to tell you something about our background. The AJEFO made a complaint to the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. The complaint was about a federal statute, the Contraventions Act, and its regulations. The purpose of the Commissioner's investigation was to determine whether the Department of Justice had complied with the provisions of Part IV, including section 25, and Part VII, as well as the spirit of the Official Languages Act in the passage and enforcement of the Contraventions Act.

I would like to explain what we will be talking about here today. We will give you a brief summary of the background of the Contraventions Act as it relates to the problems raised by the Commissioner. We will mention some passages from the Commissioner's report and refer to the requirement on the part of Justice Canada to comply with the Official Languages Act and constitutional rights whenever any power is transferred to other levels of government. We will mention briefly the issues raised in Ontario by Bill 108, the Contraventions Act, and finally, we will make a few practical recommendations to try to correct the problems we're having at the moment.

I will start by giving you some brief background information on the Contraventions Act. You will find this information in our brief, beginning on page 1. The Contraventions Act was passed to create a simplified procedure for non-criminal offences, or procedures that were distinct from those set out in the Criminal Code. The idea was to simplify the procedure.

The Contraventions Act made these offences punishable by a fine. The prosecution began with the filing of an offence notice, that the person could pay on receipt without having to appear in court if he or she wished to plead guilty.

In 1996, the Contraventions Act was amended. The Governor General in Council was given the power to use the procedure and law applicable to provincial offences in prosecutions of federal contraventions and the Minister of Justice could sign agreements with the provinces or municipalities to allow them to prosecute violations of federal laws. An agreement of this type was negotiated with Ontario, the municipality of Mississauga and the City of Ottawa.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Are those the only places?

Ms. Nathalie Boutet: As far as I know, these are the three places where agreements were signed.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): None were signed in Newfoundland, New Brunswick or elsewhere?

Ms. Nathalie Boutet: I apologize, Madam Chair, but I don't have any information on the other provinces. Oh, excuse me! In the second last paragraph on page 2, there is a reference to other places. Thank you for that clarification.

So, in 1996, the Governor General determined which Ontario laws would apply to the prosecution in Ontario of federal contraventions. I will now turn the floor over to my President, who will give you a brief overview of the points I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks.

Ms. Tory Colvin: Our complaint to the Commissioner of Official Languages, which was the beginning of this controversy, resulted from a change in procedure regarding official languages. The Contraventions Act did not include the provisions of the Criminal Code which guaranteed the right to a trial in either of the two official languages.

• 1555

Before the Contraventions Act, an accused could choose which language he or she preferred for any offence, any contravention. They could choose to have their trial in their own language—either English or French. The Criminal Code also offered a third option: the trial could be held in both languages.

When prosecutions under the Contraventions Act are referred to the province, Part XVII of the Criminal Code, which covers language rights, no longer applies. We are therefore subject to the laws of Ontario, which provide that in order to be entitled to a trial or services in French, people must live in certain designated regions. There is either the Courts of Justice Act or the French-Language Services Act.

The result of this, in our view, is a reduction in the language rights of the accused. This also results in reduced service to the public, for people who want to deal with the offices that look after contraventions. These services are available only in designated bilingual regions. Elsewhere, people are not entitled to service in French.

Another problem occurs when the Province of Ontario transfers the prosecution of certain provincial offences to the municipal level of government. Municipalities in Ontario are not subject to the French-Language Services Act and are therefore not required to offer service in French. They may do so if they wish. That is what I would call a privilege, not a right.

Let me give you an example. If you get a parking ticket in the City of Toronto and you ask for a trial in French, you will find yourself appearing before a justice of the peace who speaks both languages, but that's all. Neither the prosecutor nor the clerk will speak French. Consequently, French, while not quite a foreign language, since the justice of the peace speaks French, is nevertheless definitely not at the same level as English in the trial before the court.

However, in the case of offences subject to the procedures of the Criminal Code, individuals are entitled to a trial in French or to a bilingual trial. The prosecution will have to speak your language, as will the judge and the clerk. In other words, the entire trial takes place in the language of the accused. The transcript of the trial is done in the language of the trial.

Consequently, you can see that in the past, there was much more protection for francophones involved in court procedures. With the prosecutions being held by municipalities now, people no longer have the same protection.

In the past two years, we have worked very hard with the Attorney General of Ontario to provide some protection of language rights in the Act that transfers prosecutions to the municipalities.

Initially, the Government of Ontario claimed that the language protection included in the agreements signed between the municipality and the province would be adequate.

The problem we anticipate with this procedure is that if the agreement is not respected, accused persons will have no way of ensuring that it is respected, because they are not a party to the agreement. Their language rights will therefore be ignored, and they will have to write to their elected representatives to complain after the fact. In our view, this does not reflect the duality of our official languages, which should be present in the courts of Ontario.

• 1600

We anticipate the same problem in the case of contraventions. Let us take the example of the devolution agreement signed with the City of Mississauga. If you get a speeding ticket or a parking ticket at a Toronto airport, without the linguistic rights set out in the Criminal Code, you are not necessarily entitled to a trial in French. Some judges speak both languages, but in the case of an offence committed on federal land, your trial will not necessarily take place in your language.

We believe this is a reduction in people's language rights in the courts. That is why we made our complaint to the Commissioner of Official Languages and asked for permission to appear before you today to discuss this problem. I will not go into all the details that appear in our brief. It might be preferable for me to give you some examples of how the problem manifests itself or will do so, rather than simply reading you our brief.

The other area where there could be problems is service to the public. Let us take the case of individuals who want to ask some questions about a ticket they received. If they telephone for information, they may not necessarily be entitled to service in French, unless the office is located in a region designated bilingual under our Act.

If someone commits an offence on the navigable waterways around Owen Sound, since this is not a designated bilingual region, the person will not be entitled to service in French, either in setting the day of the trial or in trying to understand how to introduce evidence. However, these are offences for which people generally do not have a lawyer. At the moment, the prosecution would be handled by the federal government, and the individual in question would therefore be entitled to full service in French.

For this reason, we have made three recommendations. They appear on page 11 of our brief.

First, we recommend that the Contraventions Act be amended to include a clause that would guarantee respect for existing language rights in cases where the provinces or the municipalities take over the prosecution of federal contraventions.

To repeat what the Commissioner of Official Languages recommended in 1995, when he published his report on courts, the ideal is the minimum described in Part XVII of the Criminal Code, that is, the procedure which allows for a trial in French, a trial in English or a bilingual trial.

Second, we recommend that the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages hold a session on the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages entitled The Equitable Use of English and French in the Courts of Canada. This is the report I was referring to when I spoke about our first recommendation, because it covers much more than contraventions. It discuses other federal statutes that do not necessarily provide for the right to a trial in French, even in the case of a federal power.

Third, we recommend that the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages hold a session on judicial affairs. The right of accused persons to address the court in their own language and to have a trial in that language is remote if there are no trial judges or appeal judges who can understand French and hear a trial in French. There is another aspect to the problem in addition to the language of the procedure set out in the Act. We also need more judges that can hear cases in both languages.

• 1605

I'm proud that I took less than the 15 minutes you gave me. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Mr. Colvin,

[Translation]

thank you. Would you like to add a few comments before we begin the questions, Mr. Lévesque?

There's one thing I would like to check on before we begin.

[English]

As I understand it, part III of the Criminal Code covers a certain series of articles. But you used, I believe, Owen Sound and the canal. Is that what you were using?

Mr. Tory Colvin: I used that—

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): It was waterway.

Mr. Tory Colvin: —as an example. Owen Sound is not in an area that's designated as a bilingual area under the French Language Services Act of Ontario. Therefore, in that part of the province, there's no right to have services in French, such as counter services. For example, say you were trying to get help from the office of the prosecutor.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): All right. I have a reason why I'm asking you the question. I'm glad you clarified that. Thank you.

I have a document that indicates... We were talking about national parks, fishing regulations, fire protection, and garbage regulations. We're looking at issues such as general regulations in the national parks and highway traffic regulations. There are also timber regulations. Could you tell me what other wildlife regulations...? What else is there? I gather it means traffic tickets on federal highways. What happens if it's on a municipal highway?

Mr. Tory Colvin: If it were on land other than federal land, then the provincial Highway Traffic Act would apply. The question of what language your trial is in would come under the procedures set out in the Courts of Justice Act in Ontario. You have the right there to either an English-language trial or a bilingual trial.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Okay. So therefore, it would only deal with...

[Translation]

In the case of the 401, it would be in French. In the case of highways 416 and 417, it would be in French or in English, depending on the situation and the request of the accused. If the road is the responsibility of the City of Toronto, there is no choice and no obligation on the part of the authorities.

Mr. Tory Colvin: That is a very valid example, Madam Chair. If I am charged with speeding on Highway 401, the provincial procedure will apply, and I would therefore be entitled to a trial in English or a bilingual trial. Let us say I carry on and am driving on the highways that are part of Pearson Airport, and therefore on land that comes under federal jurisdiction. Since this is now part of the City of Mississauga, I will not have the same guarantees. We want the Contraventions Act to retain the guarantees that existed formerly and that are set out in the Criminal Code. In the case of my Pearson Airport example, I would be able to choose a trial in French, a trial in English or a bilingual trial. If I want a trial in French, I have to be stopped before I reach the airport.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): That's very interesting. Thank you. I'm not allowed to say the law is an ass, but it sounds like it to me.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Amen.

[Translation]

Ms. Nathalie Boutet: May I add something to the answer?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Please proceed.

Ms. Nathalie Boutet: The Contraventions Act refers to section 30 of the Criminal Code, which deals with linguistic procedures. Unfortunately, in subsection 65.1(1), section 30 was not included for transfers to the provinces. Section 30 was specifically left out in case of transfers. The Commissioner of Official Languages explained that it was not proper for Justice Canada to make this transfer without including section 30 in the Act's transfer to the provinces or without including equivalent rights.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): That makes a great deal of sense. Mr. Breitkreuz.

[English]

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon to the members of the organization.

I find it kind of interesting that the federal justice department is not complying with the Official Languages Act, as you see it, or the Contraventions Act, which of course is right here in Ottawa.

• 1610

You're saying that the Ontario government is certainly not complying. Now, of course, you've got it all the way down to the municipalities, which is even further away from Ottawa. There's really no connection as to what goes on regarding language at all.

But I'm interested in your organization. I'd just like to know a little more about it. Is your organization mostly comprised of the legal fraternity here in the Ottawa area or throughout Ontario? Is it that kind of thing? Are you headquartered here in Ottawa or are you in Toronto, which is the capital of this province?

Mr. Tory Colvin: If I may say, sir, I think we're headquartered electronically. My practice is in London. Our office is here in Ottawa. Our director general is in Toronto. So we're really electronically connected more than anything else.

We have members all across the province. We have representatives from every area of the province. Our membership includes judges, people who work in administration, lawyers, law students, and teachers. In other words, we've deliberately cast a broad net to anyone who might have an interest in the justice system.

Equally, we are made up of people who are of French expression. So we also welcome—we have had many of these members for many years—those of English descent, but who practice in both official languages.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Do you have a paid membership or is it a voluntary membership? Do you have an actual office with paid staff and that sort of thing?

Mr. Tory Colvin: We have an office here in Ottawa with part-time employees. Our director general is a part-time employee. Our members are all volunteers. They volunteer to pay an annual subscription to keep things afloat.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: So all your financial wherewithal is received from the members themselves. Do you have any other financing at all?

Mr. Tory Colvin: We seek financing from all levels of government. We have been getting funding from Heritage Canada and Justice Canada over the past years.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Can you tell us how much?

[Translation]

Mr. Tory Colvin: Do you have the exact figures, Gérard?

[English]

Mr. Gérard Lévesque (Executive Director, Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Ontario): No, but it's in public documentation.

[Translation]

We could get the information for you. We are members of the National Program for the Integration of Both Official Languages in the Administration of Justice. This is a program run jointly by Heritage Canada and the Department of Justice. It assists all participants in the justice system in the country—provincial governments, associations of jurists such as ours, and also legal translation centres. The aim of the program is to make this country's two official languages more accessible. It also supports the civil law in English in Quebec, and the common law in French outside Quebec. The system takes recent progress into account and increases our access to justice in both official languages in this country. The program gets a small grant from Justice Canada and Heritage Canada under these agreements.

[English]

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: But none is from the provincial Government of Ontario.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Lévesque: Not at the moment, even though we get some services from the government of Ontario. When the association was created in 1980, we got some very important support from the Attorney General of Ontario. In 1980, that was the person who is now the Chief Justice of the province, the Honourable Roy McMurtry. He's in fact one of our members. If you would find it useful, we could send the committee clerk a copy of our directory. It contains the names of all our members, such as judges, justices of the peace and small claims court judges. We have members at all levels in all courts located in Ontario. We have members from most law faculties in the province. We have people in private practice from all the regions of the province. This is a public document. In a few months, we will have a better edition, the 1999 edition. We are actually putting in boldface type the names of those who are good about paying their dues, because there are a lot of dues to be paid.

The province helped us a great deal in establishing the Association. Ontario made an effort to have French become an official language in the courts of the province. It was not the federal government that ensured that the courts of Ontario now have two official languages—French and English. This was introduced through a provincial statute passed in 1984.

• 1615

There was a sort of quiet legal revolution in Ontario that allowed us to have French recognized by the courts. Formally, there were cases where everyone may have been francophone or bilingual, but everyone had to speak English, or if they spoke French, all the proceedings had to be translated so that the record would be in English. If there was an appeal, the translation record was submitted on appeal. That was the situation in all areas of the law. If a person wanted to make a will in French, it was as though he were doing it in any other dialect. The law of Ontario assumed that the translation, which the estate had to pay for, was the original copy of the will. In 1979 a request was made to the Attorney General of Ontario, then Justice McMurtry who has now become Chief Justice, and to Premier Davis for French to become an official language of the courts. They said that this would be a good thing. That is when the change began in Ontario.

[English]

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: I only asked if Ontario funded you as well. That's all I asked.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): You got a very interesting outline, didn't you?

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Yes, but it had nothing to do with the funding, really.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): No, but—

Mr. Gérard Lévesque: It was on funding. I can say it was at least $100,000 in those few days. Now it's zero, but there's an exchange of services.

[Translation]

They asked for our assistance and the assistance of our members to ensure that municipalities not have too many problems with the devolution of authority by the federal government without any linguistic guarantees. They know there could be many cases at the municipal level, including language cases, because the government forgot to protect language rights when it transferred this responsibility. What services will be available in the municipality of Sault. Sainte-Marie, which illegally declared itself unilingual English, in cases where the prosecutor of that city represents a citizen of the city in a prosecution on behalf of the federal government?

The by-law has not been revoked so far, and this is a court case. This is now part of the case law. Ontario municipalities that declare themselves unilingual English were not entitled to do so. Will they be concerned about providing service in French when they represent the Attorney General of Canada in the prosecution of federal contraventions?

As a result of this debate, we have an opportunity today to correct the omission that occurred in 1996, when the Contraventions Act delegated to provinces, territories and municipalities the option of replacing the federal government in the prosecution of contraventions.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you for these explanations, Mr. Lévesque, but I do not want to penalize you, Mr. Breitkreuz. You still have a minute and a half.

[English]

You have another one and a half minutes.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: I actually have some time? Thanks.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): No, you don't, but I just gave it to you.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: How do you expect municipalities to comply when your own justice department here in Ottawa doesn't comply or the Ontario government doesn't comply? In fact, I guess we're all going to be saving ourselves a lot of money because there was a lot of talk about traffic tickets and that sort of thing. You just pay your fines and get on with it.

So how do you expect that when here in Ottawa the federal government isn't complying? This is the federal government, which is the government that instituted the Official Languages Act almost 30 years ago. How do you expect municipalities to comply in a province that isn't officially bilingual?

Mr. Tory Colvin: What we've negotiated, sir, with the Government of Ontario is two things. First, they amended their act to devolve to the municipalities the ability to say that a case could be a nullity—in other words, a court was not properly constituted—if it didn't respect the rules of natural justice. We then defined the rules of natural justice, which included language rights. As well, it was inserted in the act that the contract between the municipality and the province could be pleaded. So all the sections with language protection are in the agreement. They're incorporated in the Ontario act.

So if you are standing before a court that isn't prepared to speak to you in your language, you can say, sorry, the court is not properly constituted, so the proceedings can't proceed. That's because the agreement between the municipality and the province is incorporated in the act by that. So in effect, it's saying to the municipalities that if you're going to have the benefits of prosecutions of provincial offences—this means you're going to keep the fine money, the revenue—then you're going to have to offer services in French.

What our association has done with the attorney general's office and the municipalities is to make it known that we're prepared to assist. We're prepared to identify people who can help them either in clerking or in learning how to clerk for bilingual people and in finding prosecutors so that we can solve the problem. We don't just raise a problem; we try to raise the solutions.

• 1620

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you very much, Mr. Breitkreuz. Thank you, Mr. Colvin.

Before we go to Mr. Turp, you said something in the notes, which we've read, about Bill C-108. I understand that when that bill was being studied and from what the commissioner's report said, proper amendments were not made to ensure that there would be access to services in either official language. You just said they were. Perhaps I misunderstood or I misheard.

Mr. Tory Colvin: What has been worked out, Madam Chair, is a compromise whereby the bill was amended last spring just before third reading.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): On June 9 it passed but without an amendment, as I understood it. Did I make a mistake?

Mr. Tory Colvin: June 9 was third reading, but it was amended before that. I know we worked out our agreement with the attorney general in April of last year.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you. I think that will clarify some notes that the members around the table have. I think it's important for us to have proper information, so I appreciate that.

Mr. Turp.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): I would like to thank the representatives of your association for taking the time to appear before our committee. I would also like to say that the Bloc Québécois is pleased to see how far you go in promoting the language we share—you in Ontario and we francophone Quebeckers. I would like to tell you that we fully support your struggle.

I read your brief with interest, and I should point out that it is very well written in French. I did not read the English version, but I'm sure it is well written also. The problem of different interpretations of the constitutional powers of the various levels of government seems to me to be mainly a legal problem. Our constitutional expert, Senator Gérald Beaudoin, will be delighted with your references to the ancillary powers of the federal government.

But I would like to know whether there is a political problem underlying the legal problem. Why is the Department of Justice interpreting its authority in an apparently restrictive way? Why does the Ontario government not seek to interpret the Contraventions Act more liberally, as it no doubt could? That is my first question.

I come now to my second question. Why are you appealing to Parliament at this time? Have you tried unsuccessfully to win your case with the governments? Are you turning to us because you think that the Act must be amended by Parliament, since the Department of Justice of Canada does not appear to want to take this initiative itself? That is my second question.

I have another one for later, Madam Chair.

Mr. Tory Colvin: I certainly would not want to claim to be a spokesperson for the Department of Justice. From what I understand, the department's position is that the agreement with the Attorney General can provide all the necessary protection. We do not find this adequate, because the agreement is not part of the Act. So we cannot argue that language rights have been violated.

There is no doubt that there is a political dimension to the problem, because the solution is to amend the Act. And of course you are the only people who can do that. That is why we requested permission to appear before you.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Not exactly. The government is the body that can introduce bills. Have you sent a request to the Minister of Justice asking for an amendment? And has she refused to act on this request? Is that why you asked to appear before a parliamentary committee?

Mr. Tory Colvin: We have had a number of meetings with officials from Justice Canada, to whom we mentioned the problem we anticipate. We told them that the solution would be to amend the Act. Was that an official request?

• 1625

Yes, we made an official request and, moreover, we filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Official Languages. So we are doing everything possible to get this mistake corrected.

Mr. Daniel Turp: What happened to your official request?

Mr. Gérard Lévesque: The official answer from Justice Canada is that consultations are under way. However, we know that there is a controversy as to whether the power was delegated to the provinces or whether there was an incorporation by reference. In either case, there was a change. The case involved a prosecution by the federal government for the violation of a contravention, and this could now be handled by a municipality instead of the federal government. No provision was made to protect language rights. The one that existed formerly is not automatically included when the right to prosecute is transferred.

This has happened in other areas; this is not the first time there has been an omission. The same goes for the Divorce Act. One of the recommendations contained in the Commissioner's 1995 Report refers to this matter. We thought that it would be appropriate that your committee, in light of its mandate, look at the 1995 Report and recommendations presented by the Commissioner of Officials Languages at our convention. When Parliament decided to transfer responsibility for administering the Divorce Act to the provincial courts rather to the Federal Court, no mention was made of language rights.

As a result, two francophones seeking a divorce may not be able to use their language in a divorce proceeding if nothing is mentioned to this effect in the federal Act. This is a very difficult situation in a province, and I have seen it even here, in Ottawa. The two parties involved were francophone, but in many cases, it was impossible to use French in the proceedings, because the federal Act was silent about the use of French and had transferred federal jurisdiction over divorce to the provincial court. That situation has now been corrected in Ontario, but so far still exists in the other provinces.

That is another point we would like you to discuss, because it applies to legislation other than the Divorce Act. In criminal cases, the first Official Languages Act was clever. The 1969 Act stated...

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Astute?

Mr. Gérard Lévesque: It was astute.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I merely wanted to understand the word. Is it astute?

Mr. Gérard Lévesque: Astute. Astuteness.

Mr. Daniel Turp: That is the adjective that corresponds to the noun.

Mr. Gérard Lévesque: The Criminal Code—

Mr. Daniel Turp: Did you understand, Madam Chair?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I don't know. It just struck me.

Mr. Gérard Lévesque: The Criminal Code is within federal jurisdiction, but it is applied provincially. The first Act allowed French to be used—that is, both languages, which meant French—when civil cases could be heard in French in a province. Therefore, this provided provinces other than Quebec with the possibility of making no linguistic changes if they so chose. They merely had to refuse to authorize civil cases from being heard in French, and thus avoid the obligation to hear criminal cases in French.

Only New Brunswick agreed to do so. In Ontario, it happened in 1979. It took 29 years before criminal cases could be heard from coast to coast in French. We do not want to wait another 25 years for the Contraventions Act, the Divorce Act as well as all the other Acts of the Parliament of Canada.

That is why we are asking your committee, which has a very specific mandate for official languages, to look at the oversights that have occurred. In 1996, when Parliament amended the Contraventions Act of 1992 to allow provinces, territories and municipalities to replace the Attorney General in prosecutions for federal offences, an oversight occurred.

Mr. Daniel Turp: I want to understand this clearly. The oversight—if it is an oversight—would, nevertheless, not stop you from doing what you want.

Mr. Gérard Lévesque: After a year of negotiations—

Mr. Daniel Turp: According to your interpretation, services should be provided in French. However, a legislative amendment would provide a better framework for the services, or, in any case, would succeed in convincing people that this is mandatory. The impediment that you have mentioned lies within the Department of Justice. Is there also one in the Government of Ontario?

Mr. Gérard Lévesque: We succeeded in achieving a compromise with the Government of Ontario, which is not necessarily the solution that we seek. This compromise has enabled us to achieve more than the correction of the oversight. After one year of debate, we have achieved an amendment to the bill. In Ontario, we were dealing with a majority government that did not want to amend its bill. In May 1997, we met with the parliamentary committee that was reviewing Bill 108, and it rejected our recommendation.

• 1630

It has taken us a year of debate, negotiations and meetings with the Attorney General of Ontario before he recognized that, indeed, there might be a problem where the transfer to a municipality involved not only in prosecution of provincial offences, but also of federal offences. In addition to the rights established under the Official Languages Act, there is the issue of constitutionally enshrined language rights, and all that those entail.

If a citizen wanted to assert the right contained in the Constitution, he would be entitled to funding under the Court Challenges Program. But since the linguistic constitutional right is not specified in the legislation that has been transferred to the provinces and municipalities, there is an obvious loss, at the present time, in the right to be served in French, which is set out in subsection 20(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Right. If it is a constitutional right, it is not necessary to include it in a...

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): You will be able to ask another question in a few minutes, Mr. Turp. I've already given you an extra three minutes. Is that alright?

Madam?

[English]

I'm sorry. Mr. Robichaud, did you say you wanted to ask a question? Did you change your mind?

Senator Louis J. Robichaud (L'Acadie—Acadia, Lib.): Yes, I did.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): All right, fine.

[Translation]

Senator Louis Robichaud: I did not want to embarrass anyone.

I think we have made quite considerable progress in the implementation of the Official Languages Act. In fact, in Ontario, and particularly in New Brunswick, the progress we have made compared to the situation that existed in the 1950s, a period to which Mr. Lévesque referred, has been tremendous.

When I was a young lawyer I saw a trial in which the judge had trouble speaking English, the Crown attorney could manage well in both languages, the defence counsel was perfectly bilingual and spoke Acadian French, and all the witnesses were francophone. That trial took place entirely in English, because of the situation at the time. That is a huge step forward.

There are still some problems. I understand from your brief that you are making three requests. The fundamental principles regarding the implementation of the Official Languages Act do seem to be respected. Although your requests are not that detailed, I was wondering whether you could make them even more concise. I read your brief, and I'm having trouble understanding exactly what your association is seeking. Your request is quite legitimate.

I cannot quite put my finger on exactly what you want the federal authorities to do. This committee has no jurisdiction over the Ontario legislature. That is one of my questions, and I will have another one for you later.

Mr. Tory Colvin: First of all, Senator, I certainly agree that there has been a great deal of progress made in the area of language rights in the past 20 years or so. We fear that this legislation could be a step backwards, not a total regression to the 1950s, but a step backwards nonetheless.

In our first recommendation we ask for something that already exists in the Criminal Code as regards language rights. It is set out in Part XVII of the Criminal Code, which entitles people to a bilingual trial, or one in French or English. That was the procedure that should have been followed before the Contraventions Act. It was only after the passage of this Act and the devolution of certain powers to the provinces that this right disappeared.

• 1635

We are recommending what the Commissioner of Official Languages called an acceptable minimum in his 1995 Report—namely, guarantees for language rights. That is a part of the Criminal Code that stems from the Official Languages Act.

Senator Louis Robichaud: Essentially, you are asking for an amendment to the Criminal Code.

Mr. Tory Colvin: No, Senator. This is already in the Criminal Code.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): An amendment to the Contraventions Act.

Mr. Tory Colvin: We would like to see the procedure set out in the Criminal Code, which applied to contraventions, introduced into the Contraventions Act so that language rights are protected in the new legislation.

Senator Louis Robichaud: Is that the only thing you are asking of our committee?

Mr. Tory Colvin: Well, the other recommendations—

Senator Louis Robichaud: The other two recommendations would involve your appearing before the committee again.

Mr. Gérard Lévesque: The 1995 Report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, which dealt with the equitable use of English and French in the courts, contained 13 recommendations, I think. There was a great deal of consultation done and Justice Canada published a working document that we also quote in our brief. The provincial deputy attorneys general met and held discussions at various levels.

It would be interesting if the senators and members of Parliament with a special mandate on official languages were to invite the Commissioner of Official Languages to come and defend his recommendations. The committee could also hear from other witnesses to find out what happened with the consultation process and whether any of the recommendations will be implemented. In fact, Parliament's co-operation will definitely be essential if this is to be done. A vote will be required to specify which language rights apply in certain federal statutes, in cases where trials are not held by a federal court or in cases where the attorney is not from the federal government.

Senator Louis Robichaud: I congratulate you on the work done by your Association. Do you know whether there are similar associations in the other provinces? I would like this put on the record.

Mr. Tory Colvin: Yes, there are similar associations of French-speaking jurists in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.

Senator Louis Robichaud: Are they as active as your association?

Mr. Tory Colvin: We like to brag that our association is the most active, but if I were to say that in front of the others, they might challenge my assertion.

Senator Louis Robichaud: Thank you.

I understand we are talking about bilingual trials, but I would like some clarification. Would these be trials with simultaneous interpretation? Is that correct?

Mr. Tory Colvin: We are talking about trials in which the transcript and the documents submitted in evidence may be in either French or English and in which simultaneous interpretation is used simply for communication purposes. In the case of a trial in French, everything would take place in French; whereas for a trial in English, everything would take place in English. The Criminal Code provided for the three options.

It is not difficult to imagine that in Quebec a number of trials are held in French only, and that in Ontario, a number are in English only.

Senator Louis Robichaud: Simultaneous interpretation is not involved.

Mr. Tory Colvin: Not necessarily, Senator.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Senator Beaudoin, please.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): I would like to come back to the fundamental principle. In my view, the Official Languages Act puts French and English on absolutely equal footing in Canada. The Act does not make any reference to the cost that may be involved. And this Act applies at the federal level.

As a jurist, I cannot accept that French would enjoy less protection in cases where the federal government delegates a power. I think this runs counter to the spirit of the Act, which is about the equality of the two languages. This would destroy what has just been built. So you must at least be given what you are asking for. Otherwise, the situation will be as follows: when a federal statute is administered by the federal government, trials would be bilingual, and when the same statute is delegated, trials would no longer be bilingual. This runs counter to the Official Languages Act.

• 1640

It is possible that even the delegation of a power may run counter to the Act, but that is a different matter. The same is even more true of the delegation of a power to a municipality. There is a principle in law which states: “delegatus non potest delegare”. That means that the individual to whom a power was delegated cannot delegate the power in his turn. You will say that this can be found in the federal statute. If it is, I can understand the principle, but I cannot accept that a quasi- constitutional statute, such as the Official Languages Act... It is not just any statute; it is quasi-constitutional.

Mr. Daniel Turp: In which judgment was that said?

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: That has been said in I don't know how many judgments, but many jurists have definitely written that in legal doctrine. As far as I am concerned, there is no doubt that it is a quasi-constitutional Act.

I cannot accept that the delegation or sub-delegation of any power can make it possible for a level of government to avoid a bilingualism requirement set out in the Constitution.

If a decision is made to enter into an agreement which delegates certain federal powers to the provincial or municipal level, I cannot accept that acquired rights would be violated in this way, when they would have been respected had the federal government legislated and acted itself.

In my view, therefore, it would not be surprising if some day—and this would be a fine case to argue in the Supreme Court—the Supreme Court were to find that there is a constitutional obligation to ensure that bilingualism is respected when a power is delegated.

You are preaching to the converted in my case, particularly when we're talking about the third power of government. We're talking here about contraventions, that is about the judicial power. The judicial power, the legislative power and the executive power are the three major powers of the State. That is fundamental. That principle cannot be violated without violating the Constitution.

I think we have to find a way of ensuring that the bilingualism guaranteed under a federal statute remains in place when responsibility for the statute is delegated. We have to find a way of ensuring that bilingualism is guaranteed where powers are delegated, just as it is when the federal government itself exercises the power. I believe this is the underlying principle. In my view, there is no choice: this is an obligation.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Put forward a bill in the Senate, in that case. You could take the initiative for that.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Yes, yes.

Mr. Daniel Turp: You should go ahead and do it.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Definitely. I have no objection. However, I have to convince people, and I have just one vote.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Yes, but you are in the majority in the Senate.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Yes, but...

Mr. Daniel Turp: Come to think of it, they are no longer in the majority.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I think we have to hammer this idea home into people's heads. We often hear the argument—and I heard it the other day and found it scandalous—that francophones only make up 25% of the population of Canada. The Official Languages Act does not guarantee 25% equality for French and English. French and English are guaranteed absolute equality. I am sorry, that is what the Constitution states. In my view, there is no doubt that the equality is shared 50-50.

The point of my comments is this: just as I want a federal statute to be fully applied in both languages, I also want the same statute, once it is delegated, to apply in both languages as well. Otherwise, the government need only delegate authority to get out of its bilingualism obligation. That makes no sense.

Yes, go ahead.

Mr. Tory Colvin: That is exactly what concerns us, Senator, because if language rights are not included in the statute itself, one way or another, they cannot be argued in court. Thus, if they're not included in the agreement between the provinces and the federal government, they are no longer rights that can be argued in court, they become a sort of administrative privilege. I think our language rights are too important to no longer enjoy protection under the Act, and to be reduced to a mere privilege that may be granted.

• 1645

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I would like to ask a second brief question, if I may.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Yes, Senator Beaudoin, you have ten minutes.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I am referring... Just a moment.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Do you want me to come back?

[Translation]

Would you like me to come back to you later? Senator Losier-Cool has a question that arises out of yours.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I will be pleased to wait until my colleague has asked her question.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Senator Losier-Cool.

The Joint-Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Tracadie, Lib.)): Senator Beaudoin has been speaking about the delegation of authority by the federal government. The Fontaine Commission which was appointed by Minister Massé and is to be reporting in January 1999, is supposed to be looking into the whole issue of the devolution of powers to the regions, particularly regions in which there are minorities.

Will the issue of languages in the judicial system, in particular as regards the Contraventions Act, be included in the report? Have you met with the group headed by Yvon Fontaine?

Mr. Gérard Lévesque: Yes, we had an opportunity to meet with the group chaired by Mr. Yvon Fontaine, but he said he was not going to get involved in the issue involving ourselves and Justice Canada and try to decide which side was right. They are studying the matter in theoretical terms and are not taking this case as a specific example. This is quite an interesting example of a change in the federal government. We expect that the report, which is expected very soon, will deal with the issue at least indirectly.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: This issue must definitely be included. This is exactly what Senator Beaudoin said when he was speaking about the delegation of powers. That is why Minister Massé asked the Fontaine task force to look at the whole issue of the devolution of powers by the federal government. In New Brunswick, there's no problem, but the situation is quite different in British Columbia.

Mr. Gérard Lévesque: That is what concerns us. In Ontario, we had a provincial system of language rights that we could use to negotiate with our province, but our colleagues in the other provinces are not in the same position.

In some provinces, what will happen in the prosecution of federal contraventions? I'm thinking of Alberta, British Columbia, and so on. This is quite an interesting example.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Colleagues, if I may, Mr. Lévesque and Madam Losier-Cool, I think it's important for you to know that your document has been given to Mr. Massé today and I can assure you it will be looked at. I personally have spoken to ensure that it will be looked at very carefully.

Mr. Tory Colvin: Thank you, Madam.

[Translation]

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I cannot accept that a constitutional obligation can be avoided by delegating to another level of government something that one should or could do oneself in accordance with bilingualism. I cannot accept that.

As the late, much-missed Mr. Justice Brian Dickson said in the case involving the Acadians, what use is it to speak French or English if no one understands? There has to be some type of structure. There's no point in simply telling people that they have the right to speak French to the wall. That does not work. The appropriate structures must be put in place. Well, that's another problem. I will come back to that.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you.

Ms. Nathalie Boutet: May I answer the question asked by Rose-Marie Losier-Cool?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Certainly.

Ms. Nathalie Boutet: Even though we don't have the report yet, the Office of the Commissioner of the Official Languages has studied this issue specifically. I would invite committee members to read the report. It refers to the problems of delegating powers and states clearly that language rights are not negotiable. It is an important document.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: We have read it.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you.

Ms. Bradshaw.

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Lib.): I would like to congratulate you as well. As an Acadian from New Brunswick, it warms my heart to hear you. As the parliamentary secretary for the international Francophone community I have had an opportunity to travel a great deal more in Canada and to see francophones in all our provinces. I would like to congratulate you on your work.

I agree with the Senator. Mr. Turp asked the questions I was going to ask. It is my impression that you study many statistics. You were supposed to study statistics on people who request service, but whose needs were not met. Do you have any statistics on that?

• 1650

Mr. Tory Colvin: No, we do not have any specific statistics on that.

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: You don't have any.

Mr. Tory Colvin: In Ontario, it is somewhat difficult to get figures on the number of trials in French or English, because very often, this aspect is not taken into account. For example, we found that in Eastern Ontario, where trials are customarily held in French or English, people do not indicate in the appropriate box whether the trial was in French or in English. It is simply a trial, they don't think about the issue of language. In other parts of Ontario, where French is spoken much less, the language is indicated. Consequently, it seems that many trials held in French in Eastern Ontario are not included in the statistics.

This having been said, I do not feel it is a matter of statistics, but of basic law. As a Canadian, a person must be able to plead his or her case in his own language, especially where a federal offence is involved. Even where only a single person is involved, the person should have this right. It should not be withdrawn simply because they forgot to talk about it in the Act.

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: I agree with what you're saying; even if there was only one person involved, he should have this right. However, if you could say how many requests there might be, it would have an impact, not only political, but at other levels. I suggest that you talk to the members of your association in order that they might be well aware of this.

Ms. Nathalie Boutet: One of the problems is that there are people subject to trial whose language rights are sloughed off at the counter, and who unfortunately do not know about our association or about their rights. In our claims, we always promote active offer. It is not necessarily up to the ordinary person subject to trial who is unaware of his rights to go and complain in order to beef up the statistics. That's not how it happens. Some people say that we'd like to have a bilingual trial or talk to someone in French when they pay a fine, but at the counter they are told, You pay or you get out or you go to jail. He will not necessarily come to our association to beef up the statistics. It would be interesting to have them, but it may be an impossible proposition.

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: Perhaps there should be some publicity in this regard. I think that if people were more aware of their rights, you might have more support. That's how I see things. I agree with the senator and I am always looking for a way of solving the problem. Perhaps our francophones need to know that they have this right.

Ms. Tory Colvin: Quite often there is a problem when it comes to setting the date for a trial in French or a bilingual trial. When I am ready to set the date for one in English, it is done the very same day. But when the trial is to be in French, it has to be deferred because they don't know when the French judge—they always say French judge, even though they mean the bilingual judge—will be available. So the lack of magistrates raises another obstacle to access. Those subject to trial, especially in family cases, divorce or child custody, often say that they prefer to have it in English rather than wait. There is a measure of urgency in all this. That's the other aspect of the problem.

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: But you also know that the more requests there are, the more involvement there will be on the part of politicians. Thank you.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): It's going back to Mr. Breitkreuz, but I'd like to ask you what happens if I get a ticket on the road, say when I come off the 401 on my way to an airport outside of the major Toronto area? How do I read what they said to me on that ticket? Does that mean the Ontario police force should all be bilingual before they write a traffic ticket?

Mr. Tory Colvin: The offence notice in use in Ontario is in both official languages, but the police officer has a choice of what language he will fill the boxes in with. That's true in Criminal Code matters as well, and, because my view was that the charge in the French trial should be in French, I took that one through the Court of Appeal and knocked on the door of the Supreme Court of Canada and was told to go away. I got the first judge to agree with me but not the others.

Here your ticket—

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I think you should get Mr. Beaudoin. I think you would win.

[Translation]

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Well, he said that the ticket was in both languages.

• 1655

[English]

Mr. Tory Colvin: The form itself is in both languages.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: It's in both languages.

Mr. Tory Colvin: The form itself is. What is filled out by the police officer—

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): What matters is what the police officers write on the ticket. If someone does not understand the language in which these notes are written, have his rights been violated?

[English]

You don't want the case?

[Translation]

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I am tempted to answer that if a very high level of French or English were required, there might be a good deal of offences that would not go to the end.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Okay, I'll let you continue with Cliff Breitkreuz, but I thought I'd ask the question. Go ahead.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: This confusion and complaining, and all this complex stuff, was actually foretold by the prime minister who instituted the Official Languages Act, Prime Minister Trudeau, when he said in 1977 that official languages was a mistake, because he could foresee all kinds of problems working themselves through and nothing being resolved.

But you asked, Madam Bradshaw, about statistics. The fact is there are no complaints. There's a whole fistful of complaints here from the Commissioner of Official Languages and not one of them is about justice, other than the complaint this organization is bringing forth, and maybe one or two others—another one of theirs probably.

So where is this coming from if there are no complaints other than your own?

Mr. Tory Colvin: I think part of it may lie in the fact, sir, that most of these offences are ones that people would get a ticket for. They may not be aware of the right. It's much like the parking ticket case out of Manitoba about 20 years ago that opened the door to French-language rights in Manitoba. Out of a little parking ticket came a whole revisiting of Manitoba's place in the Constitution.

Many people simply don't understand or don't see it. They look at it and say, I got a ticket; I have to pay it. To me, it ignores the whole other aspect of it. If you have a ticket you don't understand, you may pay it, but it's going to also increase your resentment, and to me that is alienating people from government, and it surely is what we should not be doing with the justice system. It's complicated enough now without putting it even more out of reach of ordinary people just because of their language.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: How do you suspect, then, all of this is going to play? You talk about this in English Canada basically, but how is this going to play in Quebec, which is a unilingual province where they have Bill-101? How will that play in Quebec?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): We have the right to a bilingual ticket. We can plead in both languages.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Read the court case.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Lévesque: If the federal Contravention Act is amended, it will not apply to Ontario only, but to every province that will agree to replace the attorney general in the prosecution of federal contraventions. It may be an interesting opportunity. If, for example, a political party calls for national reform stating that from now on, language rights must fall within provincial jurisdiction, it might also be said, in regard to delegation to the provinces, will we start at square one in the field of language rights by renegotiating everything that is to be given, or should we maintain the status quo on language rights?

Today, before the committee, we are not asking for any new rights, but a clause that will maintain existing rights at the federal level, whereby whenever the federal attorney general is replaced by a province, territory or municipality in prosecution for a federal contravention, the existing language law will be maintained. It's the same thing in any federal field. If some feel that the country can be reformed by saying that from now on, all language rights must fall within provincial jurisdiction, with this example we can either maintain the status quo or start at square one and negotiate the language rights within each province.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Don't you find that there are enough things in daily life without starting this discussion again, sir? I think we should build on what we already have, which is very good, even on the world level.

[English]

Sorry, had you finished?

• 1700

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: No. I guess maybe we need another Official Languages Act and another official languages commissioner, or things will just really go along.

Mr. Tory Colvin: The job is almost open now.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Hey, I am bilingual.

Mr. Gérard Lévesque: Are you a candidate? They are looking for a candidate.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: No, I wouldn't encumber Canadians with that kind of a job.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): No. You mean you like what you're doing so much you wouldn't consider leaving.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: You got that right.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Mr. McWhinney, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Madam Chair, I would like to give a bipartisan aspect to this discussion. As far as the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Forest case is concerned, I feel that Mr. Beaudoin is perfectly correct. He is right, and I am on his side. There might be some disadvantages, but no confusion. We must correct this perception. There is no confusion as to the legal implications of the Official Languages Act. There are some disadvantages, but they can be resolved by taking a practical approach. You are right, dear colleague.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Mr. Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I wish to correct something. At least one Supreme Court of Canada decision nullifies a number of sections of Bill 101. In fact, there were two: one which said that the laws of Quebec must be in both languages, which is not the case in the other provinces, except, of course, New Brunswick and Manitoba—

An Hon. Member: That's the Blaikie decision.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Yes, it's the Blaikie decision. There was even a Blaikie decision 2 for municipalities. And another decision says that trials in Quebec are to be in French or English. You cannot say that Quebec is unilingual. While it is true that since 1982 New Brunswick has gone further on the legal level, you cannot say that Quebec is unilingual. Quebec is not unilingual. Its laws are adopted in both languages, and trials are held in both languages. I feel that I must intervene on that point, because it's unacceptable.

In terms of bilingualism, let me get back to the question of the delegation. The Official Languages Act governs federal statutes. The Contraventions Act, which is before us, is federal. Thus it must conform to the letter and to the spirit of the Official Languages Act.

Now it has been stated in this Act that there can be a measure of delegation. It's a manner of speaking, because the federal level cannot delegate powers to provinces. The Constitution doesn't allow for it. There is no entitlement to delegate powers from Ottawa to the provinces, or vice versa. But they are calling for a mechanism whereby the municipalities and the province might do what the federal government could do itself. My only argument is that if this kind of federal law, which is governed by the Official Languages Act, calls for a sort of delegation, we must not bypass bilingualism, in other words, we must not pass off a constitutional responsibility.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): That's basic. It's in the statutes of Canada governing—

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I feel it is very basic. I am sure that if it went before the Supreme Court, virtually the same kind of reasoning would be followed. It might not use the same words, but in my opinion, the idea is clear. When you in your brief request that the Contraventions Act be amended to include a guarantee that rights be maintained, I agree wholeheartedly. I think that the guarantee is already there, but in my life in the legal profession, I learned that it is good to go back over the same principles. People say that it's repetition, but repetition is necessary, because people understand things slowly, and they forget. So I think we must go back over it. If you ask my opinion, I am in complete agreement on that.

An Hon. Member: Thank you, Senator.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): So the reaffirmation—

Mr. Ted McWhinney: It's a constitutional obligation.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: You never set aside an obligation.

• 1705

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Are there any other questions?

I think I can thank you very much.

Mr. Lévesque, just by accident, chance, or good luck on our part, I will be dealing with child custody and access and amendments to the Divorce Act tomorrow, all day, from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., and you can be very sure I will ensure that your observations are brought to our attention and that we do something about it. Hopefully, I won't have any problems and they'll just take it as a sine qua non. That's just to let my three other colleagues around here who are such Latin experts know that I know one phrase.

So I really want to thank you.

If you have something you'd like to add before we close the meeting, we would be very pleased to hear from you.

[Translation]

Mr. Tory Colvin: I would just like to repeat, Madam Chair, honourable senators and members of Parliament, that we are the ones who thank you.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you very much.

I'd like to advise the members that the next meeting will be on Tuesday, November 24, at 3.30 p.m. in room 701 of Édifice de la Promenade Building, and our witness will be the Townshippers' Association.

Thank you very much. See you then.